Humans act kinda however their environment teaches them to act. Societies exist along a spectrum from encouraging people to be individuals to encouraging people to feel like part of a community. Most western cultures trend towards individualism. When we see ourselves as individuals, we’re more likely to see those around us as competitors.

That’s my guess at least. Judging by the way you’re typing in English I’ll assume you’re in the individualistic part of the world like me, and yeah, kinda sucks for most people. Personally, I think the fact that most people are upset with the nature of the society we live in is proof we’re supposed to be more community oriented.

That’s really how we should think about a lot of things. People don’t fall for stuff because they’re dumb. They fall for stuff because they’re vulnerable.

You mean the National Guard? They’re just another branch of of the military now.

If you mean the white nationalist militias, they’re pretty content with what going on. I think they’re getting ready to bring lynching back.

If you are talking about leftwing militias, I got some bad news…

I didn’t say the article is incorrect. The only claim the abstract makes is:

The conclusion states that the females can see more shades of colors than males.

Your using this article as proof that:

women see a greater range of colors, because women were more likely to gather food.

Asserting that women evolved to see more colors because of the role they played is the aspect I take issue with. The article you cited doesn’t say this, and there’s no way to establish causality between women seeing more colors and their role as prehistoric gatherers. For all we know, women’s ability to see more / better distinguish between colors could be some trait carried forward from whatever we originally evolved from, and has nothing to do with humans.

I wasn’t intending to call you a bigot, but cautioning that arguments of the type, “x group of people are in the societal position they’re in today because of the role they filled in prehistory,” tend to be used to defend bigoted beliefs. What you said seems benign on the surface but for some someone with an agenda, it’s not hard to twist that it into “women are evolved to be gatherers and men evolved to be hunters, so women should stay at home and men should be breadwinners.” Similar arguments were used to justify slavery.

Lastly, I was trying to say that you can’t form casual relationships in evolutionary psychology because of how casual relationships are establishecd. In psychology, in order to say something is a casual relationship, you must perform an experiment. It is not possible to perform an experiment with a prehistoric woman because they’re all dead. No experiment = no casual relationship. For this reason, I recommend avoiding the field all together. It’s niche anyways, and fraught with bigotry. The inability to establish casual connection isn’t exclusive to evolutionary psychology either. You also can’t establish casual relationships with self reported surveys because people lie.

Evolutionary psychology is a gateway to bigotry. While it does offer some convenient explanations, I’d avoid it. It’s inherently impossible to draw causality for the claims made in this field.

Tolerance is a social contract. OP broke that contract by writing a ridiculously calous, mean spirited comment, and is no longer entitled to tolerance.

Tolerance the way you’re describing is how Nazi’s gain a platform. We don’t have to be tolerant of intolerant people. Just think about all the ways that could break society.

deleted by creator

So glad we dereguled the market so everything is a crypto scam now.

I think it was called digg?

Edit: I mean this as a glib ignorance of reddit and wanted to look it up for the nostalgia, but holy shit they’re relaunching digg!!!

If nothing else, one silver lining is he is SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the influence America and the West has on the world.

Spoken like someone who’s never had to pick their last option.

He is far from the first flim-flam snake oil man making it big and performing atrocities in America. You could even look at the founding of the country as a sort of real estate scam gone darkly awry.

I mean Plato thought reading books would make people more stupid.

Being intolerant of society destroying behaviors seems exceptionally reasonable.

Age of Empires. It’s a finely aged meme.

The movie takes place in Italy right before WW2 breaks out, and op is an actual quote from the movie. I feel like that’s worth pointing out.

Yes you are describing the intent of a boycott.

Republicans have spent the last 40 years purchasing the entire system, obviously it works for them. They’re the ones that paid for it.

Why would he care how democracy worked, it’s not like he’s planning on using it…

“I can’t believe you didn’t put me in your top 8 on Myspace!!”

Also, “w00t!!”